efg loan default

[businessfunding]

That was the impression we were under too but the solicitor categorically told my husband over the phone she was instructed to pursue the house. And now with the CCJ its my understanding that if he defaults then we could be forced to sell it to settle. Clearly its difficult as its not like he will get another mortgage in a hurry so we seem stuck trying to find the repayment each month. The variance of being told 25% liability and the situation we are now does not add up but we seem stuck

Perhaps your solicitor is the problem?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100201/text/100201w0027.htm

do your research - they cannot target your home...

 

[Bricklayer]

Thanks businesfunding you cant get better than a goverment link to prove something.

Has anyone experience with banks taking homes from business owners in the event of a default with the EFG?

 

[Bricklayer]

havehadenough,

I've already posted these details but it would be worth ringing Phil Dibbs on the following contacts

Tel: +44 (0)1904 341121
[FONT=Cambria, sans-serif]Mob: +44 (0)7866 362333[/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria, sans-serif]email [email protected][/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria, sans-serif]As an ex banker he understands the scheme and what the banks can or cant do.[/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria, sans-serif]He's been advising me now for a few weeks and I have to say he's been a great help to me.[/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria, sans-serif] [/FONT]

 

[havehadenough]

Thank you very much for the details

 

[quaerito]

Thanks to Bricklayer for keeping me updated here

We're in the position of being threatened on taking family home into a shortfall dispute and HSBC have at last relented on direct action there.

I feel the likelihood of a "class action" on EFG is remote as I believe that the scheme is fundamentally sound (unlike PPI) but the banks have (ab)used elements of the scheme with a significant number of borrowers to cover their own exposure in lending prior to EFG. Our entire EFG debt was simply a rehash of previous lending which went bad when our business prospects and property valuations dived in the 2009/10 "adjustment".

I'll stay closer to this forum and thank all for input and connections to date.

KBG - keep bloody going

 

[Andrewb1]

Not a class action...more a coordinated defence where we share common information that would be useful in persuading:
The Financial Services Ombudsman for small businesses with less than 11 employees or a Court by way of a Defence to enforcement proceedings.

 

[quaerito]

Aware that RBS are mentioned in a few EFG disputes in this thread - I refer you to some media coverage for RBS activity on defaults and seizures here = en.europeonline-magazine.eu

Hope that helps!

 

[Bricklayer]

Thanks quaerito,

I'm my previous posts a while back someone posted that a "serial entrepreneur in residence" at the BIS must be some kind of a joke.

Well here we are with Lawrence well and truly fighting the banks in support of us sme's so no joke there then?

I had an email off Lawrence yesterday saying he's getting inundated with business's contacting him over evidence of abuse.

I'm in pretty regular contact with a number of influential people who may help in getting the EFG scam into the wider public domain so watch this space.

Its strange whenever there's a banking scandal story the RBS always appear in the centre of it.

 

[Andrewb1]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']The House of Commons Committee on Business and Enterprise (as it was then known) reported on the Enterprise Finance Guarantee scheme in 2009 (10th Report). I cannot post the url but google: Business and Finance Committee / 10th Report / pdf[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]
cm200809

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']The Committee heard evidence from representatives of:[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Barclays Bank (Mr Cooper); [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Lloyds Commercial (Mr Pegge) and [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']the Royal Bank of Scotland (Mr Ibbetson). [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']What they disclosed might explain why there was/is a disconnect between the way the Commercial Managers were/are selling the EFG - as a "Government Backed Guarantee" and the Recoveries Managers of the Banks who are cautious not to claim on the EFG. [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']The Government Capped its Guarantee to the Banks at 9.75%. It might explain why:[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/FONT]
· [FONT='Times New Roman','serif']the Recoveries Managers are behaving ruthlessly with personal guarantors of EFG's under this scheme. [/FONT]
· [FONT='Times New Roman','serif']they go after the guarantors first and the Government second. [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']The important point to note is that this cap was not communicated to the front line managers who must have thought that (as under the SFLG) the Government provided a 75% guarantee. It begins at Question 52 (the relevant evidence is in larger font):[/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Q52 Chairman: I think I am quoting the RBS[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']evidence now to the Committee (it is a general point;[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']it is just the source so that I get the facts correct), and[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']I think it is your evidence, Peter, which said:[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']'Although the Government provides a 75%[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']guarantee, claims are capped at 9.75% (net on a[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']portfolio basis and not advised to Relationship[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Managers). This is a state aid consideration and has[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']not restricted lending under the EFG.' [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']That, I think,[/FONT] [FONT='Times New Roman','serif']was your statement it is not advised to Relationship[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Managers' from the RBS. Can I ask about this cap[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']on 9.75% of claims? Have I understood that[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']correctly? Have I interpreted your evidence[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']correctly? Is this 9.75% cap a reasonable cap?[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Mr Ibbetson: [/FONT][FONT='Times New Roman','serif']You have understood it correctly. The[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']difference between the EFG and the Small Firms[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Loan Guarantee Scheme was that the banks received[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']a 75% guarantee under the SFLGS without any[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']portfolio cap. The EFG still gets a 75% guarantee[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']case by case, but over the overall portfolio we are[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']capped on the amount that we are guaranteed, which[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']is 9.75%. I think two points come out of that. We, as[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']a group, were nervous at the outset of the scheme[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']that this might restrict our willingness, if you like, to[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']support some businesses. I have to say I do not think[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']that has been the case, in retrospect; I cannot find a[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']case that we would have supported were that cap not[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']there, simply because the cap has been there. So, in[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']retrospect, I am satisfied that the cap has not been a[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']detractor to the businesses that we support. The[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']other point to make is that we have consciously not[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']made a big issue of this in terms of our frontline staff.[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']The important thing is that we use this scheme for[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']the right businesses to support businesses, and[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']actually the fact there is a portfolio cap should not[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']interfere in the way that we look at that support.[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']That is why we have not publicised the issue too[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']heavily into the front line.[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Q53 Chairman: Do you want to answer for the other[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']two banks?[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Mr Pegge: Yes. I think it is a cap of 13% on total[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']losses, 75% of which is 9.75%, which is why you may[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']have seen the 13 and 9.75 quoted. It is entirely[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']consistent, I think, with the positioning of the[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']scheme as being there to support viable businesses,[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']and as a responsible lender I think if we were taking[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']losses of more than that we would feel we probably[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']would not have been lending in the right[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']circumstances.[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Mr Cooper: It is a consideration, clearly, in terms of[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']the loss rate that may be experienced. If the loss rate[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']is higher than that then banks will suffer that loss. At[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Barclays we have not built that into our risk[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']modelling; we have not communicated that at all to[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']our front lines. We do not want that to be a[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']distraction.[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Q54 Chairman: So all three of you have not[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']communicated to your front line.[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Mr Cooper: That element of the scheme, yes.[/FONT]

 

[Andrewb1]

The House of Commons Committee on Business and Enterprise (as it was then known) reported on the Enterprise Finance Guarantee scheme in 2009 (10th Report). I cannot post the url but google: Business and Finance Committee / 10th Report / pdf


The Committee heard evidence from representatives of:
Barclays Bank (Mr Cooper);
Lloyds Commercial (Mr Pegge) and
the Royal Bank of Scotland (Mr Ibbetson).

What they disclosed might explain why there was/is a disconnect between the way the Commercial Managers were/are selling the EFG - as a "Government Backed Guarantee" and the Recoveries Managers of the Banks who are cautious not to claim on the EFG.
The Government Capped its Guarantee to the Banks at 9.75%. It might explain why
- the Recoveries Managers are behaving ruthlessly with personal guarantors of EFG's under this scheme.
- they go after the guarantors first and the Government second.
The important point to note is that this cap was not communicated to the front line managers who must have thought that (as under the SFLG) the Government provided a 75% guarantee. It begins at Question 52 (the relevant evidence is in larger font):

Chairman: I think I am quoting the RBS evidence now to the Committee (it is a general point;
it is just the source so that I get the facts correct), and I think it is your evidence, Peter, which said:
Although the Government provides a 75% guarantee, claims are capped at 9.75% (net on a
portfolio basis and not advised to Relationship Managers). This is a state aid consideration and has
not restricted lending under the EFG.'
That, I think, was your statement it is not advised to Relationship
Managers' from the RBS. Can I ask about this cap on 9.75% of claims? Have I understood that
correctly? Have I interpreted your evidence
Is this 9.75% cap a reasonable cap?
Mr Ibbetson: You have understood it correctly. The difference between the EFG and the Small Firms
Loan Guarantee Scheme was that the banks received a 75% guarantee under the SFLGS without any
portfolio cap. The EFG still gets a 75% guarantee case by case, but over the overall portfolio we are
capped on the amount that we are guaranteed, which is 9.75%.
I think two points come out of that. We, as a group, were nervous at the outset of the scheme
that this might restrict our willingness, if you like, to support some businesses. I have to say I do not think
that has been the case, in retrospect; I cannot find a case that we would have supported were that cap not
there, simply because the cap has been there. So, in retrospect, I am satisfied that the cap has not been a detractor to the businesses that we support. The other point to make is that we have consciously not made a big issue of this in terms of our frontline staff.The important thing is that we use this scheme for the right businesses to support businesses, and actually the fact there is a portfolio cap should not interfere in the way that we look at that support.That is why we have not publicised the issue too heavily into the front line.

Q53 Chairman: Do you want to answer for the other two banks?
Mr Pegge: Yes. I think it is a cap of 13% on total losses, 75% of which is 9.75%, which is why you may have seen the 13 and 9.75 quoted. It is entirely consistent, I think, with the positioning of the scheme as being there to support viable businesses, and as a responsible lender I think if we were taking losses of more than that we would feel we probably would not have been lending in the right circumstances.
Mr Cooper: It is a consideration, clearly, in terms of
the loss rate that may be experienced. If the loss rate is higher than that then banks will suffer that loss. At Barclays we have not built that into our risk modelling; we have not communicated that at all to our front lines. We do not want that to be a distraction.
Q54 Chairman: So all three of you have not communicated to your front line.
Mr Cooper: That element of the scheme, yes.

 

[Andrewb1]

please ignore my first post today - the second is the same but without the commands. if took longer than 10 mins to edit.
andrewb1

 

[Andrewb1]

The Enterprise Finance Guarantee: Fact Sheet used by Business Link in 2009stated:

"Government will guarantee bank loans to Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) This will enable lending to those viable businesses who, in these current economic times, are unable to get a loan or a consolidation of overdrafts from their existing bank.
The Enterprise Finance Guarantee is part of the Solutions for Business portfolio…"
(my emphasis)

N.B. It states the "Government will guarantee bank loans to Small …sized Enterprises" i.e. the guarantee is to the borrower not the lender. This is an important distinction. It also refers to the "Premium" which is the language of insurance.

Please compare this with the current advice which is:

"The government guarantee

By providing lenders with a government-backed guarantee for 75% of the value of each individual loan, subject to a cap set by an Annual Claim Limit, EFG facilitates lending that would otherwise not take place.
The guarantee provides protection to the lender in the event of default by the borrower - it is not insurance for the borrower in the event of their inability to repay the loan.
The borrower is responsible for repayment of 100% of the EFG facility, not just the 25% outside the coverage of the government guarantee. Where defaults occur, the lender is obliged to follow their standard commercial recovery procedure, including the realisation of security, before they can make a claim against the government guarantee…"

The current advice makes it absolutely clear that:

• the guarantee is to the lender, not the borrower,
• it is not insurance for the borrower,
• the lender claims for any security before it can claim against the Gov. guarantee.

 

[Bricklayer]

I wonder??

Not sure but it may be worth keeping and eye out for further developments in the FT this week?

One story which may come out is the EFG abuse?

Bringing the scandal a bit nearer to the BIS's front door...you never know?

 

[havehadenough]

I am watching with interest to see how this story now develops and am grateful that someone such as Lawrence Tomlinson has taken it up. Hopefully now there will be more people come forward demonstrating the scale of the issue.

Can I ask if you know when the transition occurred between the nature of the government advice you have quoted clearly differentiating between lender and borrower emphasis.

 

[Andrewb1]

Sorry but I have put in a subject access request that ought to reveal this information.
Andrewb1

 

[Andrewb1]

The Advice posted on the BERR website on 20th January 2009 was:
Enterprise Finance Guarantee
In the current climate, businesses are finding it increasingly hard to access the finance they need, particularly working capital. This is not because the business has suddenly transformed from a success to a failure; but because the current economic conditions has made a significant impact on the availability of capital as the banks change their approach to risk and tighten lending conditions. Under the Enterprise Finance Guarantee, the Government will guarantee lending to viable businesses to ensure that they can get the working capital and investment that they need.

This £1.3bn scheme will support bank lending, of 3 months to 10 year maturity, to UK businesses with a turnover of up to £25 million who are currently not easily able to access the finance they need. It will enable them to secure loans of between £1,000 and £1 million through the Government guarantee and is available up to 31 March 2010.
The guarantee can be used to support new loans, refinance existing loans, or to convert part or all of an existing overdraft into a loan to release capacity to meet working capital requirements.
The Enterprise Finance Guarantee is available through the following high street banks now[/font]
Barclays[/font]
Clydesdale/Yorkshire Bank
HBOS[/font]
HSBC[/font]
Lloyds TSB[/font]
RBS/Natwest[/font]
Northern Bank[/font]
It will become available form many other lenders shortly.
Delivery of the Enterprise Finance Guarantee, including the decision on whether or not it is appropriate to use it in connection with any specific lending transaction, is fully delegated to the participating lenders. There is no automatic entitlement to receive a guaranteed loan and nor is there any pre-qualification process for it.[/font]
For an initial appraisal on whether your business may be eligible for the Enterprise Finance Guarantee go to the Real Help Help with Finance web page hosted on Business Link where you can also complete an assessment which you can then take to your bank.[/font]
What has happened to SFLG
The Small Firms Loan Guarantee is suspended. The type of lending previously provided under SFLG - to businesses that lack collateral and/or track record - will still be available under the new scheme. Government will be bringing forward proposals for a scheme post March 2010 later this year.[/font]
How is EFG different to SFLG?[/font]
In short it offers more help to more businesses - EFG provides loans up to £1 million compared to an upper limit of £250,000 for SFLG and supports businesses with a turnover of up to £25 million compared to £5.6 million under SFLG. Additionally ECF loans can be used to convert an overdraft into a loan. EFG is available to viable businesses that in normal circumstances would be able to secure lending from banks but who cannot secure bank lending in the current times.[/font]
(my emphasis in bold - guaranteed lending to businesses not lenders)

 

[Andrewb1]

BERR referred businesses to Business Link:



The Enterprise Directorate is the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) expert policy unit on small business issues throughout Government.
BERR does not deliver services direct to businesses. Support programmes are wherever possible run in the regions to be close to customers. However, the Enterprise Directorate retains policy responsibility for the Government’s investments in a range of business support tools – including Business Link, Enterprise Insight, and access to finance funds. Information about these is contained in the following pages.
Business owners and potential entrepreneurs owners seeking a wider range of business advice should refer to their local Business Link (0845 600 9 006) to speak to a Business Link adviser. Additionally, extensive information is available on the Business Link website ... which brings together information from over 50 departments and agencies. The web site will help you address your business needs through information, on-line tools and referrals to your next steps

 

[Andrewb1]

The Advice posted on the Business Link website on 20th January 2009 was:[/font]
Enterprise Finance Guarantee[/font]
Description[/font]
The Enterprise Finance Guarantee is a guarantee facility for small businesses intended primarily to improve the availability of working capital through term loans and the consolidation of overdrafts. It will also support lending for business growth and development in cases where a sound proposition may otherwise be declined due to a lack of security.[/font]
The guarantee will cover the following types of lending:[/font]
new term loans (with terms of between one and ten years)[/font]
existing lending where lenders might not otherwise refinance the debt[/font]
conversion of part or all of an existing utilised overdraft into a term loan in order to release capacity in the overdraft to meet working capital requirements (conditional on the lender being prepared to continue to provide an overdraft and the serviceability of both the term loan and the overdraft)[/font]
The guarantee will fund:
working capital
investment by businesses seeking to grow or develop[/font]
In addition to regular capital and interest payments to your lender, and any arrangement fee which they may charge, a premium is payable to BERR.
The premium is equivalent to two per cent per annum on the outstanding balance of the loan, assessed and collected quarterly in advance throughout the life of the loan.
A discount of 25 per cent will be applied to all premiums due and successfully collected during 2009.[/font]
Delivery of the Enterprise Finance Guarantee, including the decision on whether or not it is appropriate to use it in connection with any specific lending transaction, is fully delegated to the participating lenders. There is no automatic entitlement to receive a guaranteed loan and nor is there any pre-qualification process for it.[/font]
The following main lenders will lend to eligible businesses under Enterprise Finance Guarantee:[/font]

Clydesdale/Yorkshire Bank
HBOS
Lloyds TSB
]RBS/Natwest
It is likely that a significant number of existing smaller SFLG lenders will become lenders under Enterprise Finance Guarantee in due course.[/font]
[Up to £1.3 billion of new bank lending will be guaranteed by the Government.[/font]
Eligible businesses are able to borrow between £1,000 and £1,000,000 when this would not otherwise have been possible.[/font]
Small businesses in the UK with an annual turnover of up to £25 million are eligible.[/font]
Loans for most businesses purposes to businesses in most sectors are eligible. The principal exclusions relate to businesses in the agriculture, coal, and steel sectors, and to the financing of individual export orders. Your lender will advise if any of these restrictions affect your business when they consider your loan application.[/font]
Businesses will need to provide all the information normally required by a lender in connection with a loan application, which will generally involve competing their application form and providing supporting information, typically including your:[/font]
current business plan, including details of the purpose for which the loan is required and details of other investment in and financial commitments of the business[/font]
information on any other publicly funded support received by your business within the past three years[/font]
Additional Info
Enterprise Finance Guarantee has replaced the Small Firms Loan Guarantee scheme (note that eligibility for the EFG is expanded from the previous scheme).[/font]

 

[Andrewb1]

In January 2009 BERR delegated the administration of the EFG to Capital for Enterprise Ltd.

Capital for Enterprise Ltd has so far produced three EFG LENDER MANUALS:

July 2009 - ISSUE ONE
October 2009 - ISSUE TWO
May 2012 - ISSUE THREE

It is not until issue three that the following warning appears for lenders:

"Lenders should make Borrowers aware that in the event of default, the Borrower remains liable for 100% of the outstanding EFG debt and that normal recovery and enforcement procedures (against the Borrower or Guarantor) will be pursued by the Lender before any demand is made on the scheme guarantee. The provision of an EFG guarantee does NOT remove any liability for the borrowing from the Borrower / Guarantor."

 

[Bricklayer]

Bankers Breaking Britain

please find a link to Neil Mitchell's online petition

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/George_Osborne_and_Vince_Cable_Put_bankers_behind_bars/?kHznigb

Please log in and make a stand for too long these people have been ripping us off.

 

[Anna_Concia]

I have experience with EFG loan default, banks not as scarey as one might think, drop me a line if any help is needed, also found a great solicitor who knows the field well.

 

[havehadenough]

Interestingly our freedom of information request came back from BIS today. It does say that the Guarantee Rate is 75%. To be fair lloyds did say in their response to my most recent complaint letter (October '13) that although the efg was backed by a government guarantee of 75% that was to them as a lender and not me as a borrower (although contrary to the guidance when i took the loan and the sales patter of the bank manager at the time). They say that as a lender i am liable for 100% as long as i can pay it. Throughout my attempted negotiations the bank had used incorrect forms which showed my disposable income as over £40k per month - i wish - which would suggest i cold pay it. They even went to the trouble of using this in getting a CCJ against me which i've been struggling (but just managing) to pay - though for how much longer i really don't know.

Laughingly, in their response to my complaint they point out (for the first time) that their policy is to get repayment in 84 months - which brings the repayment to within £30 of what i was offering in the first place long before they went to court. At that point they were wanting more than three times that amount every month.

I really do find it all very hard to understand. Why a bank, of which i had been a customer of for well over 20 years, would pursue such an agressive approach when i repeatedly told them the distress, upset and illness it was causing to me and my family AND when i had offered payments which by their own policy seem more than reasonable for a loan they sold me under the pretence that i was only liable for 25%.

Well, i say pretence - but the final section of my FOI request details how Lloyds made a demand against the government guarantee for 75% of the outstanding loan amount a mere 12 days after responding to my last letter of complaint.

Perhaps i just dont understand, or maybe it's just all a big misunderstanding.

It feels a bit like lloyds have a CCJ against me for more than the full amount of loan when they sold me it on the basis of 25% liability on my part.

It feels a bit like i'm repaying 100%+ of the original efg loan AND the governement are paying 75% of the loan.

It feels a bit like i might have gone into the wrong business, banking it seems wold have been much more lucrative.

Or perhaps 'havehadenough' kind of sums it all up.

Any insight would be gratefully received.

 

[Bricklayer]

havehadenough,

i'm about to launch a civil litigation against the RBS on the basis of misrepresentation over the fact that it was sold to me on the basis i'd only ever be liable for 25% in the event of a default.

Irrespective of who the 75% benefits the fundamental facts are you were told you'd only be liable for 25% same as the rest of us its inconceivable that Lloyds have a ccj for the full amount against you but then go on to make a claim for the 75% off the government do you know if they've been paid out?

I'm talking to a number of papers I've been in the FT a couple of weeks back but it didn't go into great detail over the miss selling of EFG's but the next articles will.

I'll update when I know more.

 

[havehadenough]

The FOI printout is from 12 Dec and the demand against government guarantee was made by Lloyds on 11 Nov but it doesn't say whether paid or not. I did pay the guarantee premium though so i'd imagine they were - perhaps i'll ask the ombudsman if they can find out for me?

 

[Bricklayer]

I'd go back to the FOI at the BIS and ask the question if they've been paid out 75% then apply to the court to revisit the payments to suit the 25% I can't see them being allowed to collect 175% of the default amount have you written to your MP to ask if they will get involved?

 

[Anna_Concia]

Don;t now whether you are aware but there is a limit to how much the government are willing to pay back on defaults, can't remember what the figure is but if that limit is reached then there isn't any more pot for the government to pay. I guess this is the banks risk. I wasn't made aware of the additional premium on top, also was forced to take PPI as a condition.. Had the shock of my life when they payments started coming out! I couldn't afford the payments. So many things wrong with the way this was conducted, the FSA have to look at it as its really screwed people over!!

 

[Bricklayer]

At one stage it was restricted to just over 9% but I think its been lifted slightly. As you say that's the banks risk. If its been sold on the basis that you pay an insurance premium to cover the guarantee then so it should. Anna are you saying that you wasn't made aware of the 2% premium payable in qtrs. of the total balance and what its purpose was. It was sold to me that it was the premium the cover the guarantee not unlike ppi.....you default, the insurance covers the 75% government guarantee regardless whether it cover the lender or borrower its the same thing leaving the borrower liable for 25%. I cannot see how the government could allow such a thing to be so unclear especially given how the banks have been selling it.

 

[Anna_Concia]

Nope they never said a word, just that I had to have PPI if I wanted it, I even asked if I could take PPI elsewhere and they said no, so forced my hand totally.

 

[Bricklayer]

Anna,

which bank sold you the EFG loan? who did you pay the premium to? have you anything in writing for the bank?

 

[Anna_Concia]

It was a LLoyds TSB efg loan, taken out in 2009, I have an agreement, the standard one for the time, an a PG, thats it.

 

[Anna_Concia]

I;ve actually asked them to disclose all data they have on this but they have just continually ignored my request.

 

[Anna_Concia]

Just another thing that popped into my head, the bank also demanded that I sought legal advice and the debentures and agreement had to be witnessed by one. I was told by solicitor that I would be unable to fight the misrepresentation as I had taken legal advice, and that I would have to take a negligence claim out on the solicitor. The solicitor just witnessed it and told me what the debenture was about but thats it. Can I ask how one can find out if a claim had been made and paid by the government?

 

[Bricklayer]

Anna,

its best to contact BIS directly for the information they have on your EFG loan under the freedom of information act on [email protected]

They should also be able to tell you if Lloyds have been paid out. Did the bank ask you to sign legal advice on the EFG or on the debenture as I think the bank would have asked for a debenture on the company although I'm not sure?

The bank should have provided a direct debit statement showing the BIS guarantee premium being taken out each quarter did they not give you one?

For me yours is another classic case of miss selling as it doesn't appear that they have given you all the information on the EFG and described the premium as ppi which is interesting better if you have that in writing?

Have the bank tried to claim on your pg or debenture?

 

[Anna_Concia]

Great thanks for the info, I will send an email to request the info. FYI, i had no direct debit statement RE the premium which was in addition to PPI not instead of. Advice was on debenture which had to be witnessed by solicitor. I've asked bank to release all documentation on this under freedom of information, I'll let you know what I get back.

 

[Bricklayer]

Did the bank take any payments to pay the BIS guarantee. Lloyds also asked you to take out a ppi policy in addition to the premium did they say what this was to cover?

I'm about to take on the RBS on misrepresentation due to liability and how it was sold to me i.e I'd only ever be personally liable for 25% which is what I was told the premium covered. Did Lloyds tell you about your max liability if so you could have a claim for misrepresentation?

Many of the people who post on this board have a common denomination is as much as we were all told about the 75% guarantee and our personal liability in the event of a default which is how the banks sold it to us.

Different banks same tale so we all cant be wrong??

My company went under last Friday as a direct result of the EFG loan and the removal of an agreed overdraft the EFG was the cancer the overdraft removal the heart attack so I'm about to default on the EFG loan.....let the games begin RBS!!

 

[Anna_Concia]

I'm so sorry to here about your companies closure, its really hard, the EFG certainly constibuted to the closing of mine, the payments were ludicrous. Yes you are right, this many people can't be wrong, something must be done. Some kind of petition to FCA to investigate maybe?

 

[Bricklayer]

Sounds good Anna and maybe the BIS also. I've given my MP all my details (again) to give to Vince Cable so hopefully he'll have to do something after the Lawrence Tomlinson report about RBS.
I'm really hoping the CID charge the RBS with fraud in its use of the EFG in our case...fingers crossed!!

I do know that there are moves afoot in bringing the EFG to the wider public domain so hopefully that will get results also.

Once you get the info back from the BIS let me know what they say?

 

[Anna_Concia]

I'll keep you posted, let me know what info you find and what happens. Think we need a collective ball to start rolling on this.

 

[georgej123]

Anna I tried to send a pm but your profile doesnt allow me to.
can you please contact me to discuss my EFG situation and maybe if you can point me in the right direction?

 

[Bricklayer]

george123 you can pm me if you want also?